Have the far right infiltrated the British police?

First topic message reminder :

Only 1 uncovered at this time, but still worthy of a full investigation to see whether there are others associated with him.
This cannot be allowed to happen.

Serving Met Police officer, 21, arrested over ‘links to right-wing terror group’

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11107767/met-police-arrest-terror-group/

No... I am just pointing out that what is often classed as 'far right' is actually far left by definition.

Tommy Monk wrote:No... I am just pointing out that what is often classed as 'far right' is actually far left by definition.

Words, words, words, tommy. Have you got any substantiation?

Quill... You quoted Hayek at me the other day as a source of authority on things... And even he classed Nazism as being far left national socialism!!!


I have posted many things over the years to back this up...


And I'm still waiting for you to answer questions on two other threads!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... You quoted Hayek at me the other day as a source of authority on things...

I did not. I quoted Hayek as an inspiration for my theory of the origins of conservatism.

You have lots of words, but no substantiation.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill... You quoted Hayek at me the other day as a source of authority on things... And even he classed Nazism as being far left national socialism!!!


I have posted many things over the years to back this up...


And I'm still waiting for you to answer questions on two other threads!!!

No he didn't.

https://fee.org/articles/hayek-on-the-socialist-roots-of-nazism/

That's right quill... You just carry on with your fingers stuck in your ears and sing "la la la la" and your eyes shut tight when you hear and see the truth that shatters the deluded beliefs of your ego...!

You just carry on cherry picking quotes and twisting them out of context, as pretend backup to your deluded fantasy...

And you just carry on cherry picking small parts of posts to answer... While ignoring the main parts that you pretend not to see...

All the while, patting yourself on the back and convincing yourself how clever and right you are...!


However... Back in the land of reality... Everyone can see what's going on...!!!

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill... You quoted Hayek at me the other day as a source of authority on things... And even he classed Nazism as being far left national socialism!!!


I have posted many things over the years to back this up...


And I'm still waiting for you to answer questions on two other threads!!!

No he didn't.

https://fee.org/articles/hayek-on-the-socialist-roots-of-nazism/

In 1944 Hayek also attacked socialism from a very different angle. From his vantage point in Austria, Hayek had observed Germany very closely in the 1920s and early 1930s. After he moved to Britain, he noticed that many British socialists were advocating some of the same policies for government control of people’s lives that he had seen advocated in Germany in the 1920s. He had also seen that the Nazis really were National Socialists; that is, they were nationalists and socialists. So Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom to warn his fellow British citizens of the dangers of socialism. His basic argument was that government control of our economic lives amounts to totalitarianism. “Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest,” he wrote, “it is the control of the means for all our ends.”


https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No he didn't.

https://fee.org/articles/hayek-on-the-socialist-roots-of-nazism/

In 1944 Hayek also attacked socialism from a very different angle. From his vantage point in Austria, Hayek had observed Germany very closely in the 1920s and early 1930s. After he moved to Britain, he noticed that many British socialists were advocating some of the same policies for government control of people’s lives that he had seen advocated in Germany in the 1920s. He had also seen that the Nazis really were National Socialists; that is, they were nationalists and socialists. So Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom to warn his fellow British citizens of the dangers of socialism. His basic argument was that government control of our economic lives amounts to totalitarianism. “Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest,” he wrote, “it is the control of the means for all our ends.”


https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html

Yes, in a nutshell, authoritarianism can come from both the left and the right. That doesn't make the right, left or vice versa.

Just stop with the Nazi's are left wing crap. It's stupid.

You obviously haven't understood what has been said...

Tommy Monk wrote:


You obviously haven't understood what has been said...

I'm a libertarian. Hayek is one of our heros.

The Nazis were a nationalist, authoritarian, right wing group that had some commonalities with authoritarian left wing groups.

Much like a libertarian will have some commonalities with a left wing group.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


You obviously haven't understood what has been said...

I'm a libertarian. Hayek is one of our heros.

The Nazis were a nationalist, authoritarian, right wing group that had some commonalities with authoritarian left wing groups.

Much like a libertarian will have some commonalities with a left wing group.

No... Nazism just like facsism was nationalist socialism with a thin veneer of capitalism...

In that it did leave much in the hands of private ownership, but it had complete control over all the means of production, and relegated private 'owners' to status of state controlled managers, who worked for the authoritarian state, rather than for themselves... The state controlled prices and wages and all aspects of production throughout the economy... None of it was left to free market capitalism.


You need to do a bit more research into what you think you know and believe...

From..... https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-fascism-and-socialism?share=1


The same as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Both “Fascism” and “Socialism” are slur words with no define contents, but if we use Soviet Socialism and Italian Fascism as the definitions, it is easier to list what is common between Fascism and Socialism.

Both are Totalitarian, Etatist ideologies, where the ideology forms the backbone and guideline of the State, and where the grip of the State and its violence mechanisms extends to the smallest niches of individual life, and where the economy is state controlled and no free market economy exists. Both are based on terror, violence and coercion, and in both all power has been concentrated to an oligarchic, self-select elite clique.

It is perhaps fair to state both are forms of Socialism; the Socialism is based on humanist studies and Marxism, while Fascism is based on natural sciences and Darwinism. Both consider coercion, violence and terror not only necessary, but also desirable, tool on imposing their ideology into practice.

Ideology and claim to be a “scientific” Weltanschauung are important on both. Both claim the supernatural “materialistic” forces shape the history and there are “natural laws” to script the history and the society on what it will form. Both claim history will follow a predestined path which both claim to have discovered.

Both are heavily affected by imagery to the point of kitsch. Totalitarian art is a cliche; it gives answers before any questions have been asked.

The main difference is that Socialism is by its definition internationalist but Fascism is nationalist. This is, however, a defied trope - there has been highly nationalistic Marxist states, such as Khmer Rouge Kampuchea.

Another difference is that Socialism draws its imagery from the idealized future; Fascism from the idealized past. Mussolini wanted to “restore the glory of the Roman Empire” again. A famous Armenian Radio joke goes:

We have been asked what is the difference of a Fascist fairy tale and Socialist fairy tale.

We answer: A Fascist fairy tale begins: “Once upon a time there was”. A Socialist fairy tale begins “Once upon a time there will be”.

This is again a defied trope: Italian Fascism was heavily influenced by Futurism, both in art and in thought. Who could have imagined a Cubist Stalin?

Likewise, the Soviet propaganda could be extremely emotion appealing with the imagery of the past and glorious history; consider the propaganda film Aleksandr Nevski.

Perhaps the best summary is that one ideology murders innocent people because of their ethnic background and the other ideology murders innocent people by their social background. This is their main difference.

Both ideologies are based on genocide and mass murder. As Fascism is based on thoughts of Plato, Darwin and Spencer, they consider culling the “useless eaters” necessary. The race aspect is not a Fascist, but a Nazi, tendency; many of the Italian Fascists were of Jewish background, but identified themselves as Italians. Socialism is based on class identity, and murdering any “reactionary classes” is necessary; that includes bourgeoisie, peasants, intelligentsia and Lumpenproletariat (the lowest of the low).

Socialism considers St. Paul’s maxim “who does not work shall not eat either” as extremely important - as justification of terror; an important concept of Lenin was “hunger terror”. By seizing the food production and controlling the food logistics, the Socialists were able to induce famines at the areas which they wanted to cull and exterminate; no need for crude methods like gas chambers.

Both are violently opposed to Democracy (although Socialism claims to be “true democracy” instead of “Capitalist class dictatorship”) and market economy. Both also are violently opposed to non-Etatistic forms of Socialism such as Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, and both also vehemently oppose Social Democracy and all forms of Libertarianism.


hmm....perhaps the author may fail to distinguish between communism and socialism (and there is something of a difference, since socialism admits to "degrees" whereas communism does not..it is absolute) however.........

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm a libertarian. Hayek is one of our heros.

The Nazis were a nationalist,  authoritarian, right wing group that had some commonalities with authoritarian left wing groups.

Much like a libertarian will have some commonalities with a left wing group.  

No... Nazism just like facsism was nationalist socialism with a thin veneer of capitalism...

In that it did leave much in the hands of private ownership, but it had complete control over all the means of production, and relegated private 'owners' to status of state controlled managers, who worked for the authoritarian state, rather than for themselves... The state controlled prices and wages and all aspects of production throughout the economy... None of it was left to free market capitalism.


You need to do a bit more research into what you think you know and believe...

I don't need to do anymore moral gymnastics. I'll leave that to leftys like you.

I have a cousin who was a serving member of the police force. Since leaving she's joined a far right organisation. Whether this is causation or correlation remains to be seen.

It's not surprising that people who join a service to uphold the law and protect the status quo might veer towards a more conservative mindset. Then again being a conservative is not synonymous with being a nazi and the problem we have politically in this day and age is that some seek to make those positions synonymous.

I would say that some - not all but some - who are attracted to jobs that give them a certain amount of power and authority such as policing and the armed forces are probably more liable to be of an authoritarian mindset. But that can veer to either left or right in its expression.

drsynne wrote:I have a cousin who was a serving member of the police force. Since leaving she's joined a far right organisation. Whether this is causation or correlation remains to be seen.

It's not surprising that people who join a service to uphold the law and protect the status quo might veer towards a more conservative mindset. Then again being a conservative is not synonymous with being a nazi and the problem we have politically in this day and age is that some seek to make those positions synonymous.

I would say that some - not all but some -  who are attracted to jobs that give them a certain amount of power and authority such as policing and the armed forces are probably more liable to be of an authoritarian mindset. But that can veer to either left or right in its expression.

Who is the 'we', drsynne?
Equating conservatism with Nazism is beyond ludicrous, I've not seen anyone on here do it.

JulesV wrote:

drsynne wrote:I have a cousin who was a serving member of the police force. Since leaving she's joined a far right organisation. Whether this is causation or correlation remains to be seen.

It's not surprising that people who join a service to uphold the law and protect the status quo might veer towards a more conservative mindset. Then again being a conservative is not synonymous with being a nazi and the problem we have politically in this day and age is that some seek to make those positions synonymous.

I would say that some - not all but some -  who are attracted to jobs that give them a certain amount of power and authority such as policing and the armed forces are probably more liable to be of an authoritarian mindset. But that can veer to either left or right in its expression.

Who is the 'we',  drsynne?
Equating conservatism with Nazism is beyond ludicrous, I've not seen anyone on here do it.

I'm not saying anyone on here has. I believe it is a problem within political dialogue today though.

Ah ok, 'we' is a tricky word, it sometimes comes across as the royal 'we' …. or as if someone is speaking on behalf of others.

JulesV wrote:Ah ok, 'we' is a tricky word, it sometimes comes across as the royal 'we' …. or as if someone is speaking on behalf of others.

No worries mate. I tend to get a bit regal when pontificating

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


No... Nazism just like facsism was nationalist socialism with a thin veneer of capitalism...

In that it did leave much in the hands of private ownership, but it had complete control over all the means of production, and relegated private 'owners' to status of state controlled managers, who worked for the authoritarian state, rather than for themselves... The state controlled prices and wages and all aspects of production throughout the economy... None of it was left to free market capitalism.


You need to do a bit more research into what you think you know and believe...

I don't need to do anymore moral gymnastics. I'll leave that to leftys like you.

I'm not a lefty.

drsynne wrote:

JulesV wrote:Ah ok, 'we' is a tricky word, it sometimes comes across as the royal 'we' …. or as if someone is speaking on behalf of others.

No worries mate. I tend to get a bit regal when pontificating

No probs.  

Most of the lefties I encounter (being one myself - a moderate, centrist one) regard simple straightforward 'conservatism' as completely harmless  ……….. if sometimes a little bemusing?  

Plus, we (liberals) are sophisticated enough in our thinking to realise that there are several types of conservatism, just as there are different shades & subdivisions of liberalism (we've all seen those famous charts/graphs showing socio economic subdivisions).
 
Nazicism is a different matter altogether, it usually implies  some form of extremism. Not a description to be used lightly on anyone - till they amply demonstrate they have earned it.

nazi with a small n is used in common parlance to mean bossy & imperious, nothing to do with politics really.

I'll go get a coffee now. Pontificating is such thirsty work.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't need to do anymore moral gymnastics. I'll leave that to leftys like you.

I'm not a lefty.

No, you're not. And neither are Nazis.

Statism doesn't make you left or right.

Yes it is.

Leftists Become Incandescent When Reminded of the Socialist Roots in Nazism
By Daniel Hannan
March 13, 2014

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver "der echte Sozialismus": real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers' Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun," he boasted, adding that "the whole of National Socialism" was "based on Marx".

Marx's error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity - to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to "convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists" - by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with "the Right".

To be absolutely clear, I don't believe that modern Leftists have subliminal Nazi leanings, or that their loathing of Hitler is in any way feigned. That's not my argument. What I want to do, by holding up the mirror, is to take on the equally false idea that there is an ideological continuum between free-marketers and fascists.

The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only when spotty students yell "fascist" at Tories, but when pundits talk of revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as "far Right".

What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls "Right-wing": the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The "Nazis-were-far-Right" shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that "Right-wing" is a synonym for "baddie".

One of my constituents once complained to the Beeb about a report on the repression of Mexico's indigenous peoples, in which the government was labelled Right-wing. The governing party, he pointed out, was a member of the Socialist International and, again, the give-away was in its name: Institutional Revolutionary Party. The BBC's response was priceless. Yes, it accepted that the party was socialist, "but what our correspondent was trying to get across was that it is authoritarian".

In fact, authoritarianism was the common feature of socialists of both National and Leninist varieties, who rushed to stick each other in prison camps or before firing squads. Each faction loathed the other as heretical, but both scorned free-market individualists as beyond redemption. Their battle was all the fiercer, as Hayek pointed out in 1944, because it was a battle between brothers.

Authoritarianism - or, to give it a less loaded name, the belief that state compulsion is justified in pursuit of a higher goal, such as scientific progress or greater equality - was traditionally a characteristic of the social democrats as much as of the revolutionaries.

Jonah Goldberg has chronicled the phenomenon at length in his magnum opus, Liberal Fascism. Lots of people take offence at his title, evidently without reading the book since, in the first few pages, Jonah reveals that the phrase is not his own. He is quoting that impeccable progressive H.G. Wells who, in 1932, told the Young Liberals that they must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis".

In those days, most prominent Leftists intellectuals, including Wells, Jack London, Havelock Ellis and the Webbs, tended to favour eugenics, convinced that only religious hang-ups were holding back the development of a healthier species. The unapologetic way in which they spelt out the consequences have, like Hitler's actual words, been largely edited from our discourse. Here, for example, is George Bernard Shaw in 1933:

Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly... If we desire a certain type of civilisation and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.

Eugenics, of course, topples easily into racism. Engels himself wrote of the "racial trash" - the groups who would necessarily be supplanted as scientific socialism came into its own. Season this outlook with a sprinkling of anti-capitalism and you often got Leftist anti-Semitism - something else we have edited from our memory, but which once went without saying. "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite?" Hitler had asked his party members in 1920.

Are contemporary Leftist critics of Israel secretly anti-Semitic? No, not in the vast majority of cases. Are modern socialists inwardly yearning to put global warming sceptics in prison camps? Nope. Do Keynesians want the whole apparatus of corporatism, expressed by Mussolini as "everything in the state, nothing outside the state"? Again, no. There are idiots who discredit every cause, of course, but most people on the Left are sincere in their stated commitment to human rights, personal dignity and pluralism.

My beef with many (not all) Leftists is a simpler one. By refusing to return the compliment, by assuming a moral superiority, they make political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet "Right-wing" to mean "something undesirable" is a small but important example.

Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.

But you use The term "lefty" with a sneer of derision.
Which puts you as a polar opposite, ie, far right.

Waffle

Brutus wrote:But you use The term "lefty" with a sneer of derision.
Which puts you as a polar opposite, ie, far right.

The term for that is knuckledragger!

Tommy Monk wrote:



Leftists Become Incandescent When Reminded of the Socialist Roots in Nazism
By Daniel Hannan
March 13, 2014

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver "der echte Sozialismus": real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers' Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun," he boasted, adding that "the whole of National Socialism" was "based on Marx".

Marx's error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity - to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to "convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists" - by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with "the Right".

To be absolutely clear, I don't believe that modern Leftists have subliminal Nazi leanings, or that their loathing of Hitler is in any way feigned. That's not my argument. What I want to do, by holding up the mirror, is to take on the equally false idea that there is an ideological continuum between free-marketers and fascists.

The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only when spotty students yell "fascist" at Tories, but when pundits talk of revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as "far Right".

What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls "Right-wing": the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The "Nazis-were-far-Right" shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that "Right-wing" is a synonym for "baddie".

One of my constituents once complained to the Beeb about a report on the repression of Mexico's indigenous peoples, in which the government was labelled Right-wing. The governing party, he pointed out, was a member of the Socialist International and, again, the give-away was in its name: Institutional Revolutionary Party. The BBC's response was priceless. Yes, it accepted that the party was socialist, "but what our correspondent was trying to get across was that it is authoritarian".

In fact, authoritarianism was the common feature of socialists of both National and Leninist varieties, who rushed to stick each other in prison camps or before firing squads. Each faction loathed the other as heretical, but both scorned free-market individualists as beyond redemption. Their battle was all the fiercer, as Hayek pointed out in 1944, because it was a battle between brothers.

Authoritarianism - or, to give it a less loaded name, the belief that state compulsion is justified in pursuit of a higher goal, such as scientific progress or greater equality - was traditionally a characteristic of the social democrats as much as of the revolutionaries.

Jonah Goldberg has chronicled the phenomenon at length in his magnum opus, Liberal Fascism. Lots of people take offence at his title, evidently without reading the book since, in the first few pages, Jonah reveals that the phrase is not his own. He is quoting that impeccable progressive H.G. Wells who, in 1932, told the Young Liberals that they must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis".

In those days, most prominent Leftists intellectuals, including Wells, Jack London, Havelock Ellis and the Webbs, tended to favour eugenics, convinced that only religious hang-ups were holding back the development of a healthier species. The unapologetic way in which they spelt out the consequences have, like Hitler's actual words, been largely edited from our discourse. Here, for example, is George Bernard Shaw in 1933:

Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly... If we desire a certain type of civilisation and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.

Eugenics, of course, topples easily into racism. Engels himself wrote of the "racial trash" - the groups who would necessarily be supplanted as scientific socialism came into its own. Season this outlook with a sprinkling of anti-capitalism and you often got Leftist anti-Semitism - something else we have edited from our memory, but which once went without saying. "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite?" Hitler had asked his party members in 1920.

Are contemporary Leftist critics of Israel secretly anti-Semitic? No, not in the vast majority of cases. Are modern socialists inwardly yearning to put global warming sceptics in prison camps? Nope. Do Keynesians want the whole apparatus of corporatism, expressed by Mussolini as "everything in the state, nothing outside the state"? Again, no. There are idiots who discredit every cause, of course, but most people on the Left are sincere in their stated commitment to human rights, personal dignity and pluralism.

My beef with many (not all) Leftists is a simpler one. By refusing to return the compliment, by assuming a moral superiority, they make political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet "Right-wing" to mean "something undesirable" is a small but important example.

Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.

Well, both wings are attached to the same bird...........................

Not talking about birds... Or birds wings...


Talking about political wings... as in political groups or factions...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not talking about birds... Or birds wings...


Talking about political wings... as in political groups or factions...

Why is the word "wing" used?

See my last post.

Tommy Monk wrote:See my last post.

https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate

So basically, politicians in the same government can be either wing.

There are more than 2 wings across the political landscape...


It is not related to wings on a bird... a wing is a political faction or grouping...

Tommy Monk wrote:


There are more than 2 wings across the political landscape...


It is not related to wings on a bird... a wing is a political faction or grouping...

Explain to me why Hitler eradicated all left wing elements of the Nazi party?

If you believe Nazism was left wing?

Hitler used left wing socialists for his own gain, then murdered them as part of his far right agenda.
As a fellow far righter, Tommy will never admit that.

Brutus wrote:Hitler used left wing socialists for his own gain, then murdered them as part of his far right agenda.
As a fellow far tighter, Tommy will never admit that.

100% correct.

Thorin wrote:

Brutus wrote:Hitler used left wing socialists for his own gain, then murdered them as part of his far right agenda.
As a fellow far tighter, Tommy will never admit that.

100% correct.

Tommy is making a semantic argument, seizing on the word 'socialist' in National Socialist Party.  Les put that one to rest a few months ago, when he pointed out that the full name of North Korea was, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

By tommy's reasoning, that's why all democracies are authoritarian, arbitrary and capricious.

I guess we need to return to a monarchy.  Are there any Stuarts left?  I'm not fond of Germans in seats of power.  

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver "der echte Sozialismus": real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers' Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun," he boasted, adding that "the whole of National Socialism" was "based on Marx".

Marx's error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity - to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to "convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists" - by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


No... Nazism just like facsism was nationalist socialism with a thin veneer of capitalism...

In that it did leave much in the hands of private ownership, but it had complete control over all the means of production, and relegated private 'owners' to status of state controlled managers, who worked for the authoritarian state, rather than for themselves... The state controlled prices and wages and all aspects of production throughout the economy... None of it was left to free market capitalism.


You need to do a bit more research into what you think you know and believe...

I don't need to do anymore moral gymnastics. I'll leave that to leftys like you.

Only in Repug'/"Libertarian" Armerikuh would Tommy Monk be considered a "lefty"...

Everyone else on here recognises Tommy for the far-right nutjob that he is..

The most obvious reason for Tommy to keep on attempting to redefine Nazi's and Fascists as "left wing" is quite simple...

Far right dolts such as himself, finding themselves on much the same ground as the Nazis and Fascists were 80 years ago, try too hard to convince themselves that they were in fact far-left parties -- and not right wing at all..

All that Tommy keeps on proving, however, is just how clueless he really is -- with his real world "genius" IQ being closer to 47,
rather than his claimed 147,543,672,987,357.321 !

Tommy Monk wrote:

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver "der echte Sozialismus": real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers' Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun," he boasted, adding that "the whole of National Socialism" was "based on Marx".

Marx's error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity - to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to "convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists" - by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

Nut picking fallacy

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

What has infiltrated the Police is neither right or left but ideological in the views of the backward group of "Stonewall". Who no longer represent gays, lesbians and bisexuals and only place emphasis on trans people.

Where trans used to mean transsexuals. People who went through a terrible ordeal of a sex change. To gain some semblance of living the life of the opposite sex. Which we rightly changed the law to help them with GRC's. We now see an extreme group of people dictate and erode what it means to be trans. By saying anyone can claim to be the opposite sex, if they say so. Neglecting the fact this places a far greater risk to vulnerable groups. It also insults the jounry many transsexuals have gone through, by saying all you have to do to become the opposite sex. Is to say you are 

Sadly Stonewall makes a mockery of this, by saying, that anyone can self ID to the opposite sex and many Police forces are guilty of buying into this gender ideology. Which conflicts with the sex based rights of people

They seek to demolish sex base rights, with no due care in what harm this does to females, homosexuals etc

I see daily trans women extremists, those who do not go through any form of surgery. Tell females, to suck their dicks. If they disagree with them. Stonewall promotes a view, that males can be lesbians and lesbians suffer hate if they state quite correctly. They are not attracted to males.

Its in fact many females on the left that are fighting this madness and they are sadly cast as right wing for doing so and the majority of the left remain silent on this

Case in point and why now people are starting to wake up to this. In this regard fits neither left or right. Its simple people so naive, that they fail to see the harm and beliefs they are trying to force onto people. Gender ideology is the issue here. Which is done from a position to do good and be inclusive, actually creates exclusion for many females, homosexuals ect

This bullshit has to stop, but when an organisation like Stonewall, is advising Police forces. Its no wonder why we are starting to see so much conflict in society. When the Police who are meant to remain politically neutral. Take a ideological stance on an issue


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-tweet-police-acted-unlawfully

Thorin wrote:What has infiltrated the Police is neither right or left but ideological in the views of the backward group of "Stonewall". Who no longer represent gays, lesbians and bisexuals and only place emphasis on trans people.

Where trans used to mean transsexuals. People who went through a terrible ordeal of a sex change. To gain some semblance of living the life of the opposite sex. Which we rightly changed the law to help them with GRC's. We now see an extreme group of people dictate and erode what it means to be trans. By saying anyone can claim to be the opposite sex, if they say so. Neglecting the fact this places a far greater risk to vulnerable groups. It also insults the jounry many transsexuals have gone through, by saying all you have to do to become the opposite sex. Is to say you are 

Sadly Stonewall makes a mockery of this, by saying, that anyone can self ID to the opposite sex and many Police forces are guilty of buying into this gender ideology. Which conflicts with the sex based rights of people

They seek to demolish sex base rights, with no due care in what harm this does to females, homosexuals etc

I see daily trans women extremists, those who do not go through any form of surgery. Tell females, to suck their dicks. If they disagree with them. Stonewall promotes a view, that males can be lesbians and lesbians suffer hate if they state quite correctly. They are not attracted to males.

Its in fact many females on the left that are fighting this madness and they are sadly cast as right wing for doing so and the majority of the left remain silent on this

Case in point and why now people are starting to wake up to this. In this regard fits neither left or right. Its simple people so naive, that they fail to see the harm and beliefs they are trying to force onto people. Gender ideology is the issue here. Which is done from a position to do good and be inclusive, actually creates exclusion for many females, homosexuals ect

This bullshit has to stop, but when an organisation like Stonewall, is advising Police forces. Its no wonder why we are starting to see so much conflict in society. When the Police who are meant to remain politically neutral. Take a ideological stance on an issue


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-tweet-police-acted-unlawfully

I will also add, that where any LGB people remain silent on this and do not speak out

Then to me they are cowards and gutless

They forsake those within their group, because they are afraid to speak out. In case they are ostracised.

And yes Eizel, I am fundamentally speaking about you

Laters

'Wolfie wrote:

The most obvious reason for Tommy to keep on attempting to redefine Nazi's and Fascists as "left wing" is quite simple...

Far right dolts such as himself, finding themselves on much the same ground as the Nazis and Fascists were 80 years ago, try too hard to convince themselves that they were in fact far-left parties -- and not right wing at all..

All that Tommy keeps on proving, however, is just how clueless he really is -- with his real world "genius" IQ being closer to 47,
rather than his claimed 147,543,672,987,357.321 !

No. I support small state, small govt, low taxes, small govt interference, with what tax is paid goes only into running essential public services and these are run efficiently with minimal bureaucracy.

Tommy Monk wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

The most obvious reason for Tommy to keep on attempting to redefine Nazi's and Fascists as "left wing" is quite simple...

Far right dolts such as himself, finding themselves on much the same ground as the Nazis and Fascists were 80 years ago, try too hard to convince themselves that they were in fact far-left parties -- and not right wing at all..

All that Tommy keeps on proving, however, is just how clueless he really is --  with his real world "genius" IQ being closer to 47,
rather than his claimed 147,543,672,987,357.321  !

No. I support small state, small govt, low taxes, small govt interference, with what tax is paid goes only into running essential public services and these are run efficiently with minimal bureaucracy.

The devil is in the details, tommy. What does ""essential public services" mean? Does it mean healthcare? Does it mean a military? Does it mean a border guard?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


No. I support small state, small govt, low taxes, small govt interference, with what tax is paid goes only into running essential public services and these are run efficiently with minimal bureaucracy.

The devil is in the details, tommy. What does ""essential public services" mean? Does it mean healthcare? Does it mean a military? Does it mean a border guard?

Of course.